vtex_get_email_template

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but discloses nothing beyond the basic action. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data or raw content, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this lack of behavioral detail is inadequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex email template data. It doesn't explain what 'Get' yields (e.g., JSON structure, HTML content, or metadata), error conditions, or authentication needs. For a retrieval tool with rich sibling context, this minimal description leaves significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'templateId' fully documented in the schema as 'Template ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying ID-based retrieval, which is already clear from the schema. With high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get email template by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('email template'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails—whether it retrieves metadata, content, or both. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vtex_list_email_templates' (which lists multiple) and 'vtex_create_email_template' (which creates), but doesn't specify scope beyond ID-based retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid template ID), contrast with 'vtex_list_email_templates' for browsing, or specify use cases like editing or sending emails. The description alone offers no usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.